Dr Akena Adoko

Web www.nhsexposed.com

Email to a friend

Adoko v Pal Adoko v Pal and Todd - Judgement

PTA 326 in Adoko v. Pal and Todd

4. I did not deal with PTA 326 on 31 October 2002. I had not realised that there was such an application until 30 June 2003, when Dr Pal produced a useful flowchart. I also received help from the Appeals Office to understand the chronology, for which I am grateful.
5. The appellant's notice in 326 gave the case number as 291 and the defendant as Dr Pal and Mr Todd. The actual order (page 51 of the blue appeal bundle in 326) names the parties as Adoko v Pal and I set out much of the order in my judgment of 31 October. In paragraph 5 the Master ordered a hearing to follow the hearing in 190 "at which the Master will determine whether the action ought to be permitted to proceed". In paragraph 6 it was ordered that "subject thereto, the action be stayed FORTHWITH pending further order." A similar stay order had been made in 190 (page 14 of the blue appeal bundle in 326). This explains why some of the documents to which I refer later are described as "Draft" and have never been formally served in the proceedings, albeit that Dr Adoko had copies (as I understand it).
6. As can be seen from the judgment of 31 October (page 3, lines 5-6), I proceeded on the assumption, which I now believe to be erroneous, that the application for permission to appeal that order had been refused by Forbes J. Dr Adoko, as I understood it, was telling me on 31 October that he had appeared before Forbes J to argue all five cases in which similar orders were made (see page 3 line 8-12). If the flowchart prepared for the 30 June 2002 hearing is accurate, Forbes J had dealt with the order dated 19 March in 190 and not with the order dated 9 April in 291. Looking back now at the judgement of Henriques J on 27 June 2002, I see that in the case which was wrongly called Adoko v. Powe but with the correct number 291, an application for permission to appeal the order dated 9 April was pending. Given my views as expressed in the judgment of 31 October about both orders, I grant permission to appeal, on the limited grounds that the orders in paragraphs 1-y should not have been made, not for the reasons advanced by Dr Adoko, but for the reasons upon which I relied on 31 October. I return to this matter later.

30 June 2003 application to set aside orders of 31 October 2002

7. Following complaints by Dr Pal that she had not had proper notice of those proceedings I heard an application by her on 30 June 2003 to set aside my decision to allow the appeals. Only Dr Pal attended.
8. The court was sent a sick note for Dr Adoko, the contents of which I set out in paragraph 9 of the judgment. Dr Pal has strenuously maintained that the sick note was false and she supports that submission by reference to the contents of the note, to the capacity of the writer of the note, to evidence of what she says Dr Adoko was also doing whilst allegedly sick and to what she says is a history of false sick notes. Whilst I accept that there must be doubts about the sicknote relied upon by Dr Adoko on 30 June, I have not investigated the matter further and do not rely upon it as a basis for my decisions in this case.
9. I acceded to Dr Pal's application. The arguments will be found set out in a transcript of the proceedings of that day and my conclusion and the reasons therefore in a short judgment of that day. Although the transcript of the judgment is marked "Draft For Approval" either I have in the past approved it or I do so now.
10. As paragraph 7 of the judgment shows, it became clear during the hearing that Dr Pal and I presume also Mr Todd knew nothing about the two appeals which I heard, permission to appeal having been granted by Mr Justice Henriques. Dr Adoko not being present I set aside my orders of 31 October and adjourned the hearing until 1 October.

Email to a friend

[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views]

All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated.
No material from this site may be copied, reproduced or stored, electronically or otherwise,
without the express written permission of NHS Exposed.
Where material is reproduced from this site without the express written permission of NHS Exposed, NHS Exposed reserves the right to recover a fee of £100 per copy from the individuals and / or organisations concerned. Use of this site, and / or reproduction of material from this site without the written permission of NHS Exposed, will be taken as acceptance of these terms and conditions.
All material is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act.